Here's my opinion of Murray's main problem in slam finals.
I think he has slightly inferior natural physical strength and fitness. The other members of the top 4 just seem to be inherently almost super physically fit and strong and the recent AO final just confirmed that even more for me. As Bobby Jnr pointed out in another thread that's just in your genetic make up and luck of the draw type of thing excuse the pun.
Murray seems to have to work harder to get close to the same fitness and strength. He's very very fit and strong relative to most but not on the same level as freaks Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.
Correct me if wrong but out of the 6 slam finals he's been in only one of them gave him favoured scheduling eg playing the final with one days extra rest than his opponent and guess which final that was - USO 2012 the only slam final he won.
Bit of a correlation wouldn't you say?
I think Murray needs that little extra bit of scheduling luck a lot more than his main rivals but instead it almost always works against him, and because the others are stronger, the problem is only compounded. And you can see it.
In all other slam finals, I believe, Murray's opponent had the extra days rest.
Rewind to the final of AO 2013 - Murray wins the first set tie break, same pattern as USO 2012 final, then Murray is 1-0 up in the 2nd set and has Djokovic 0-40 and on the ropes. If Murray breaks chances are he wins that 2nd set and then...well who knows. I still have a feeling actually that Murray would have wained physically and lost it in 5.
Now give Murray just one extra days rest and I reckon Murray wins that final under the same circumstances.
Rewind to USO 2012 final - Murray with the extra days rest wins the 1st set 7-6, wins the next 7-5 and goes onto win the final in 5. Give Murray one days less rest there and I'd be pretty sure he loses that match.
Murray being inherently physically less strong IMO, I'm not saying less technically talented far from it, needs that extra days rest more than the others, Djokovic triumphing in two marathon back to back 5 set matches to win the 2012 Australian slam proves the point, but Murray has only had that scheduling advantage in just one of his six slam finals.

Click to expand...

As another posted stated, your scheduling disadvantage scenario wasn't entirely accurate, but, in any event, you think it's the physical, I think it's mental weakness, we'll see over the next few years who is right.

As another posted stated, your scheduling disadvantage scenario wasn't entirely accurate, but, in any event, you think it's the physical, I think it's mental weakness, we'll see over the next few years who is right.

Click to expand...

Ok so in the 6 slams where he reached the final he's had the scheduling advantage twice.

Ok so in the 6 slams where he reached the final he's had the scheduling advantage twice.

Click to expand...

I really think the windy conditions helped him more in the US Open. He handled them much better than Djokovic and that allowed him to take a two set lead. Not trying to take anything away from Murray (was glad to see him win one), but I'm not convinced he'd have beat Djokovic in normal conditions.

However, that is a part of tennis, and he handled it better. Which goes back to the question about mental toughness. Djokovic is assumed by many, me included, to be the mentally tougher player, but in that situation Murray's mental toughness won out and ultimately he won the match. Djokovic isn't flawless in that category either.

I really think the windy conditions helped him more in the US Open. He handled them much better than Djokovic and that allowed him to take a two set lead. Not trying to take anything away from Murray (was glad to see him win one), but I'm not convinced he'd have beat Djokovic in normal conditions.

Click to expand...

You absolute spanner. I think you've shot yourself in the foot with your reasoning by completely contradicting yourself by citing the wind as an excuse (aid) for Murray's USO win.

Remind me not to hire you as my attorney

The last time I checked, both players had a racquet in their hand and played with the same ball, same court and same weather conditions. The better player won on the day period. In the same way that Novak was the better player at the AO'13 final.

I really think the windy conditions helped him more in the US Open. He handled them much better than Djokovic and that allowed him to take a two set lead. Not trying to take anything away from Murray (was glad to see him win one), but I'm not convinced he'd have beat Djokovic in normal conditions.

Click to expand...

For me, it was a stamina issue more so than any 'wind factor' which, in my opinion, has been much too exaggerated on here. It may have been a bit windy in the first 2 sets (though much less so than in their respective semi-finals), but it had certainly died down after that. Bear in mind that Djokovic came back to level the match at 2 sets all so either the wind was no longer much of a factor by that stage or Djokovic had learnt to cope with it as much as Murray had. In the decider, Murray was just more up for it. Djokovic looked a bit gassed.

At 2013 AO, it was the reverse. Murray again was the better player for most of the first 2 sets (and note there was no wind factor on that occasion) but he lost the stamina battle this time. The 5 setter against Federer 2 days before seems to have taken too much out of him. Djokovic had the better of the scheduling this time and it paid off for him. He won the stamina battle that time round.

he and lendl decided on this approach as he wants to go full on at the masters events in usa and europe and then french open..

think the idea is to be fresh and super fit, and hit the ground running at indian wells and win win WINNNNN as b4 his results in this part of season have been patchy at best.

Click to expand...

Of course, the downside is that he will lack match practice going into IW. So it's a bit swings and roundabouts. I'm wondering if that foot injury he picked up at the AO final was a bit more serious than he let on. He shrugged it off as trivial at the time but it may be one of the factors that decided him against playing any of the February tournaments so as to give it longer to heal properly.

The global network of ironymeters was forced to shut down tonight after it became overloaded. Scientists have traced the cause to a tennis messageboard where a keyboard hardman with the self awareness of a chair called other people cowards. A spokesman for the International Centre for Irony Research said "some people are just to stupid to post on the internet, something should be done"

Click to expand...

You never take a day off from office? Every time someone posts something critical about Murray you reply within 10 minutes. And by every time I mean every freaking time with no exceptions.

I'm too stupid to understand complex probability - but I'm not a keyboard hardman or a troll, and I'm fookin minted - so that lack of a grasp of complex probability doesn't seem to have held back my personal development. I commend developing as a person to you - one day it might make you come across as a decent guy. We live in hope.

You never take a day off from office? Every time someone posts something critical about Murray you reply within 10 minutes. And by every time I mean every freaking time with no exceptions.

Click to expand...

I posted around six hours after WhiskeyEE.

What is it about you Murray trolls and facts? Don't you ever take a day off from making stuff up? Are you all compulsive liars or are you just hard of thinking?

If reading what I post bugs you so much (and going by the tear stains in your post, it's bugging you a lot) why don't you put me on ignore and/or stop reading threads about Murray? Why the hell do you go out of your way to read stuff that you don't like? You are doing the equivalent of sticking pins in your eyes and then moaning that your eyes hurt.

What is it about you Murray trolls and facts? Don't you ever take a day off from making stuff up? Are you all compulsive liars or are you just hard of thinking?

If it bugs you so much (and going by the tear stains in your post, it's bugging you a lot) why don't you put me on ignore and/or stop reading threads about Murray? Why the hell do you go out of your way to read stuff that you don't like? You are doing the equivalent of sticking pins in your eyes and then moaning that your eyes hurt.

Click to expand...

I'm not making things up. Seriously, do you get paid for defending Murray all the time? I'm not even joking now, you never omit a single post in which Murray is critisized. Or is it a national thing?

Btw "10 minutes" was obviously sarcastic but since you felt the need to respond to that you must feel guilty defending your hero all the time no matter what.

And I'm not putting anyone on ignore because the system is faulty. I still see that the person I put on ignore posted but I don't see the post itself, then of course I'm curious what he wrote about and have to "unignore" him to see it.

I'm not making things up. Seriously, do you get paid for defending Murray all the time? I'm not even joking now, you never omit a single post in which Murray is critisized. Or is it a national thing?

Btw "10 minutes" was obviously sarcastic but since you felt the need to respond to that you must feel guilty defending your hero all the time no matter what.

And I'm not putting anyone on ignore because the system is faulty. I still see that the person I put on ignore posted but I don't see the post itself, then of course I'm curious what he wrote about and have to "unignore" him to see it.

Click to expand...

You said I respond to any criticism of Murray within 10 minutes - and you reinforced your point by saying 'every freaking time'. The essence of your assertion was that I always immediately respond to any criticism of Murray. I refuted it by pointing out the time difference. I'm sorry if this annoys you.

If you make a factually incorrect statement about me, Murray, or anything else then I reserve the right to correct it. If you want to interpret that as me 'defending my hero' then knock yourself out mate - but please, stop crying like a feckin schoolgirl at me about things that you CHOOSE to read.

Again I ask you, why the hell are you going out of your way to be offended - are you some kind of masochist or something? Does reading stuff that annoys you give you a perky?

Stop sticking pins in your eyes and then b1tching to me that you can't see.

You said I respond to any criticism of Murray within 10 minutes - and you reinforced your point by saying 'every freaking time'.

If you make a factually incorrect statement about me, Murray, or anything else then I reserve the right to correct it. If you want to interpret that as me 'defending my hero' then knock yourself out mate - but please, stop crying like a feckin schoolgirl at me about things that you CHOOSE to read.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of sarcasm? The point was - you respond to every post that has the word "Murray" in it. I'll ask again - do you get paid for it?

Again I ask you, why the hell are you going out of your way to be offended - are you some kind of masochist or something? Does reading stuff that annoys you give you a perky?

Stop sticking pins in your eyes and then b1tching to me that you can't see.

Click to expand...

I spend some time here and whether I like it or not your posts pop out. And I already explained why it's pointless to put someone on ignore. You can write to the mods to make a proper ignore system so that I won't have to read you defending Murray all the time.

One slam wonder? Murray is just 25 and will surely win a couple more majors. Why doesn't Del Potro get this much attention? He is the real one-slam wonder, isn't he? He hasn't even made another major final after that win in 2009.

Ever heard of sarcasm? The point was - you respond to every post that has the word "Murray" in it. I'll ask again - do you get paid for it?

I spend some time here and whether I like it or not your posts pop out. And I already explained why it's pointless to put someone on ignore. You can write to the mods to make a proper ignore system so that I won't have to read you defending Murray all the time.

Click to expand...

My posts 'pop out'? Really - they run up to your eyes do they? Do the big boys make you read them then run away? Grow up.

Stop CHOOSING TO READ MY POSTS and then b1tching to me like a schoolgirl that you don't like reading my posts - please.

My posts 'pop out'? Really - they run up to your eyes do they? Do the big boys make you read them then run away? Grow up.

Stop CHOOSING TO READ MY POSTS and then b1tching to me like a schoolgirl that you don't like reading my posts - please.

Click to expand...

You should grow up yourself - spending day and night posting in defence of Murray is not normal. Unless it's your job (which I think it is - who with a little common sense would choose to spend the entire day looking for posts daring to critisize Murray) and you get paid for it (which I think you do) then ok.

But thanks for your advice. Next time a huge post of yours loaded with excuses for Murray shows up I'll just close my eyes and pretend it's not there.

One slam wonder? Murray is just 25 and will surely win a couple more majors. Why doesn't Del Potro get this much attention? He is the real one-slam wonder, isn't he? He hasn't even made another major final after that win in 2009.

For me, it was a stamina issue more so than any 'wind factor' which, in my opinion, has been much too exaggerated on here. It may have been a bit windy in the first 2 sets (though much less so than in their respective semi-finals), but it had certainly died down after that. Bear in mind that Djokovic came back to level the match at 2 sets all so either the wind was no longer much of a factor by that stage or Djokovic had learnt to cope with it as much as Murray had. In the decider, Murray was just more up for it. Djokovic looked a bit gassed.

At 2013 AO, it was the reverse. Murray again was the better player for most of the first 2 sets (and note there was no wind factor on that occasion) but he lost the stamina battle this time. The 5 setter against Federer 2 days before seems to have taken too much out of him. Djokovic had the better of the scheduling this time and it paid off for him. He won the stamina battle that time round.

Click to expand...

You may be correct, and I'm not discounting that. I just think Djokovic allowed the conditions to take him out of it a bit mentally in the first two sets of the USO final, while Murray sucked it up and played. He did settle down in the last 3 sets as did the conditions, but he was in an 0-2 hole at that point.

Maybe he did run out of gas a little in the fifth...but, maybe it would have never got to a fifth had he got it together from the start and taken one of the first two sets.

Regardless, Murray got it done in the situation as it was and deserves all the credit for it. The rest is just speculation (which we all enjoy doing).

You may be correct, and I'm not discounting that. I just think Djokovic allowed the conditions to take him out of it a bit mentally in the first two sets of the USO final, while Murray sucked it up and played. He did settle down in the last 3 sets as did the conditions, but he was in an 0-2 hole at that point.

Maybe he did run out of gas a little in the fifth...but, maybe it would have never got to a fifth had he got it together from the start and taken one of the first two sets.

Regardless, Murray got it done in the situation as it was and deserves all the credit for it. The rest is just speculation (which we all enjoy doing).

Ever heard of sarcasm? The point was - you respond to every post that has the word "Murray" in it. I'll ask again - do you get paid for it?

I spend some time here and whether I like it or not your posts pop out. And I already explained why it's pointless to put someone on ignore. You can write to the mods to make a proper ignore system so that I won't have to read you defending Murray all the time.

Click to expand...

You're only argument to Batz seems to be saying he only responds to posts about Murray.
That's all you ever seem to say. it's really monotonous and a very very weak argument.
It's making you look bad mate.

I have a question, is Djokovic's USO 2011 a fluke? I mean he's 1-3 in finals at that event. I need the answer for my tennis rule book and logic is obviously not my strong suit as dafinch so selflessly pointed out.

I have a question, is Djokovic's USO 2011 a fluke? I mean he's 1-3 in finals at that event. I need the answer for my tennis rule book and logic is obviously not my strong suit as dafinch so selflessly pointed out.

Click to expand...

If that was his ONLY Slam achieved EVER, achieved in tornado-like conditions in both the semifinal and finial, and it was sandwiched around a pathetic 0-5 in all other Slam Finals (including an especially putrid 2-14 record in sets), then, yeah, I'd say it WAS a fluke. Since that was only one of three Slams that Nole won that YEAR, let alone in his career, your point, as usual, is non existent. Try again...

If that was his ONLY Slam achieved EVER, achieved in tornado-like conditions in both the semifinal and finial, and it was sandwiched around a pathetic 0-5 in all other Slam Finals (including an especially putrid 2-14 record in sets), then, yeah, I'd say it WAS a fluke. Since that was only one of three Slams that Nole won that YEAR, let alone in his career, your point, as usual, is non existent. Try again...

Click to expand...

Lol...so in other words, everybody's first Slam is a 'fluke' until they win another one!

Lol...so in other words, everybody's first Slam is a 'fluke' until they win another one!

ROTFWL!

Click to expand...

Ahhh, I KNEW you were a liar(see post # 181 of this thread)! What happened to putting me on ignore? Once again, you conveniently ignore the other factors over and above having a single slam: why don't you reel off all the players in tennis history who lost the first 9 sets that they played in Grand Slam finals? How many have lost 5 of the 6 finals that they've played, and only won the one in 5 sets in extenuating circumstances? I suspect I'll be waiting a long time for an answer. Oh, actually, I suspect you'll put me BACK on "ignore," ROTLMFAO!!!!

If that was his ONLY Slam achieved EVER, achieved in tornado-like conditions in both the semifinal and finial, and it was sandwiched around a pathetic 0-5 in all other Slam Finals (including an especially putrid 2-14 record in sets), then, yeah, I'd say it WAS a fluke. Since that was only one of three Slams that Nole won that YEAR, let alone in his career, your point, as usual, is non existent. Try again...

Click to expand...

when are you going to stop crying..hold on, dont stop crying..its rather fun

you are so sooo bitter that murray wasted your favourite player in a major final..

when are you going to stop crying..hold on, dont stop crying..its rather fun

you are so sooo bitter that murray wasted your favourite player in a major final..

Click to expand...

Bitter? You haven't a clue what you're talking about, why in the world would I be bitter? 6 Slams to 1, and, did you happen to see the result of the Slam final between the two of them just last month? Rat Boy won the first set, and had triple breaker to go up 2-0 in the second, and then, as is his wont, he got a huge apple lodged in that giraffe neck, and there were no more sets for HIM! Yeah, I'm REAL bitter...:smile::smile::

If that was his ONLY Slam achieved EVER, achieved in tornado-like conditions in both the semifinal and finial, and it was sandwiched around a pathetic 0-5 in all other Slam Finals (including an especially putrid 2-14 record in sets), then, yeah, I'd say it WAS a fluke. Since that was only one of three Slams that Nole won that YEAR, let alone in his career, your point, as usual, is non existent. Try again...

Click to expand...

Maybe if he went 0-5 AFTER he won a slam..

Wimbledon final, Olympic Final, US Open Final, Australian Open Final.

They all share one thing in common: Andy Murray.

2-2.

Following up first major victory with a major final and he is a one slam wonder, yes very logical assumption. And when he wins his second it will be because the sun was so bright in the quarters (you seriously think he'd have lost to Berdych in any conditions??) and then he will be a 2 slam wonder..right?

Following up first major victory with a major final and he is a one slam wonder, yes very logical assumption. And when he wins his second it will be because the sun was so bright in the quarters (you seriously think he'd have lost to Berdych in any conditions??) and then he will be a 2 slam wonder..right?

Click to expand...

I enjoyed the way you tried to slip the Olympics in as a Slam-sorry, but no dice. The thread title talks about winning SLAMS, doesn't it? And, as I thought would have been obvious, I'm not talking about MAKING Finals, I'm talking about WINNING them, and I'm not quite clear how the order of going 1-5 is relevant in any way, shape, or form. As far as beating Bird-***** is concerned, why don't you look up the head to head between the two of them and get back to me?

If that was his ONLY Slam achieved EVER, achieved in tornado-like conditions in both the semifinal and finial, and it was sandwiched around a pathetic 0-5 in all other Slam Finals (including an especially putrid 2-14 record in sets), then, yeah, I'd say it WAS a fluke. Since that was only one of three Slams that Nole won that YEAR, let alone in his career, your point, as usual, is non existent. Try again...

Click to expand...

That makes sense. What if he ever wins Cincy, where he is 0-4 in finals and never won a set?